Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 89

Wed, 11 Jul 2012

• 1. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Translation of Makkos, Rav Dovid Feinstein Clarifies (Zvi Lampel)
• 4. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (David Riceman)
• 8. main idea of judaism (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: are we more in denial? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Jonathan Baker)
• 13. Shmirat Shabbat and Non-Mevushal Wine (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Shmirat Shabbat and Non-Mevushal Wine (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Lisa Liel)
• 17. Re: The Main Idea of Judaism (Ben Waxman)

RAM:

<<in my *desires*, I cannot imagine striving to be anything less than a 
*total* oveid Hashem>>

I am less focused than you.  I, for example, would like to develop an 
O(n^2) algorithm for matrix multiplication some day.  That's not assur, 
but it's not a form of avodas hashem, and a "*total* oveid Hashem" 
wouldn't waste his time on such na'arishkeit.

David Riceman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120708/cb1e3788/attachment-0001.htm>

On 7/8/2012 3:54 PM, David Riceman wrote:
> RAM:
>
> <<in my *desires*, I cannot imagine striving to be anything less than 
> a *total* oveid Hashem>>
>
> I am less focused than you.  I, for example, would like to develop an 
> O(n^2) algorithm for matrix multiplication some day.  That's not 
> assur, but it's not a form of avodas hashem, and a "*total* oveid 
> Hashem" wouldn't waste his time on such na'arishkeit.

It's not a form of avodat Hashem?  I think it can be.  If it isn't, 
maybe that's something to work on.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120708/2ed114c4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 Zvi Lampel wrote:
>
> Regarding Rav Dovid Feinstteins intent in writing "sheh-shofchim
> l'eebude ha-makkos": ... this is the reply I got:
>
> Reb Zvi-
> My friend spoke to Reb Dovid Shlit"a. All Reb Dovid would comment is
> that it is to be understood the conventional way that we spill the wine
> because of the suffering of the Egyptians. He will not respond in writing.
> I hope this was helpful. Kol tuv.
>
I wrote:

>
>   I'm trying to find out if "understood the conventional way" was Reb
> Dovid's words....
>

I received a reply, and the wording in question was not Rav Dovid
Feinstein's.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120708/104a09fd/attachment-0001.htm>

RDB writes:

>It just does not say that regarding the Shoftim of the Shoftim era. 

Well Avos d'Rabbi Natan (1:1) lists the Shoftim in the chain of tradition:
Moshe nikadesh b'anan v'kibel Torah miSinai ... Yehoshua kibel m'Moshe ..
Zikenim kiblu m'Yehoshua ... Shoftim kiblu m'zikenim shenemar v'hayu b'yamei
shofet hashoftim.  Nevi'im kiblu m'shoftim...

This is also brought in the Machzor Vitri (Siman 424).

The Meiri explains what might seem to be the discrepancy between this and
Pirkei Avos as being that the Shoftim could also be considered to be in
klal of the zekanim, so Pirkei Avos did not feel the need to spell this out.

The
>Beraisa is talking about heeding legitimate judicial authority, and, in the
>context of the Shoftim, the authority of a *Parnas* (which extends to
>Shiv'a Tovei Ha'ir as well) which also has quasi-judicial authority.  See
>Shulchan Aruch CM 2:1 and Sm'a 10 ad loc.

>The source of their authority was something akin to a Melech, and they were
>Dan Shelo Al Pi Din Torah if the situation called for it. They were not the
>heads of the Sanhedrin, nor the foremost Poskim of their era. K'tzas Raayah
>- if Yiftach were, would Pinchas have qualms about going to him to be Matir
>his Neder (Taanis 4a)?

Well the Chinuch - (Mitzvah 495) clearly understands Yiftach b'doro the way
the RMB does - that it relates to "the chacham gadol sheyehiu benenu
bizmananu" and so do the commentators on the pasuk in question (Devarim
17:9).

Similarly the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 25) is clearly talking about psak when he
brings this reference.
And see the Rashba on Kiddushin 66b where he says:

???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???'. ?"? ??"? ??"? ?"?, ????? ????? ???? ???
??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ???' ?"? (?"? ?') ????
????? ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ?"? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???' ????? ???
????? ????? ???? ?? ???, ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???.

Where he can't understand the use of the pasuk here because this posek deals
with din, not Avodah.

Which is not to say that Yiftach b'doro is not also talking about the
authority of a parnes, sourced in din melech, which is why you can indeed
find sources that deal with that side of things as well.  Moshe, we would
all agree, had both the crown of Torah and the crown of malkus.  Yehoshua
similarly, and Shmuel similarly.  You appear to be arguing that the Shoftim
had the crown of malkus but not the crown of Torah and that when Yiftach,
Yerubaal (Gidon) and Bedan (Shimshon) are equated in the gemora with Moshe,
Yehoshua and Shmuel, they are only equated vis a vis one of these two
crowns.  

I don't see RMB as disagreeing with the equation in relation to malkus, or
having any problem with the citations you bring in Shulchan Aruch etc which
make it clear that it is appropriate to use the linkage Yiftach b'doro for
those who may be considered to take on an aspect of malkus (a parnes,  the
tovei ha'ir etc).  However, what he is a disagreeing with is your
understanding that the shoftim had only malkus, and not Torah, and hence
that when Yiftach, Yerubaal and Bedan are equated with Moshe, Yehoshua and
Shmuel in the gemora and elsewhere, they are only being equated in relation
to the crown of malkus and not the crown of Torah.

So sources that show that Yiftach b'doro is used in relation to the
authority of a parnes etc do not cause problems for RMB, so long as there
are other sources that show that Yiftach b'doro is used in relation to Torah
learning and knowledge - and it seems to me there are quite enough of them
to prove his point.

Regards

Chana

I concede that there is a Machlokes Rishonim as to whether the Shoftim
themselves were part of the Shalsheles Hakabbalah. The Rambam in his
Hakdamah to Mishneh Torah, which I took as authoritative, conspicously
skips over them, since he maintained that the Shalsheles went through the
heads of Beis Din - Pinchas to Eli. See Avodas Hamelech there. (The Meiri
to Avos suggests two options on the matter.)



By the way, if you look in the Ritva to Rosh Hashanah ad loc. you will
see that he interpreted the Beraisa that Moshe, Aharon, Shmuel and Yiftach
etc. were not mentioned as Sanhedrin, but as Neviim and Melachim, as I
explained.

B'kitzur, it might even boil down to a Machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi
(which in Rosh Hashanah there says "Beis Dino Shel Yiftach), but the "Psak"
we have from the Rambam in his preface to MT is that the Shoftim were not
heads of the Sanhedrin and/or components of the Shalsheles Hakabbalah.

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:50:59PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: I concede that there is a Machlokes Rishonim as to whether the Shoftim
: themselves were part of the Shalsheles Hakabbalah. The Rambam in his
: Hakdamah to Mishneh Torah, which I took as authoritative, conspicously
: skips over them, since he maintained that the Shalsheles went through the
: heads of Beis Din - Pinchas to Eli. See Avodas Hamelech there...

Looking at the Avodas haMelekh's separation between limud, qabbalah and
mesirah, I had the following thought:

I'm not sure there is a machloqes in substance. It could be a difference
in definition of terms. Rebbe-talmid from Moshe Rabbeinu to R' Yehudah
haNasi might not run through the avos beis din. While halachic authority
would. They might simply be describing different chains.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RLL:
>
> It's not a form of avodat Hashem?  I think it can be.  If it isn't, 
> maybe that's something to work on.
>
You have rephrased what RAM and I are arguing about.  I advocate 
"multiple hierarchies", i.e., that human life does not have a single 
goal, towards which all actions are aimed.  RAM (and you) advocate a 
single hierarchy, i.e., that there is a common measure which can (and, 
ideally, should) subsume all of a person's actions.

You recall that Epicurus promised his followers that they would become 
like gods by following his advice, and the Buddha advised his followers 
that they would become greater than the gods (who Hindus believe are 
subject to metempsychosis).  What they meant is that by subsuming all of 
their human instincts and devoting themselves to not caring about the 
world they would cease to be human.

Frankly I suspect that any single hierarchy has the same danger.  I 
enjoy doing math, and it's a pleasant way to earn a living.  But to the 
extent that I subvert that enjoyment by by construing it as devotion to 
God I deny an important part of myself.

Admittedly you (and RAM) could cite the Ramak's construal of the mitzvah 
of yihud hashem to claim that my analysis is simplistic - - I could, you 
might claim, not be subverting my pleasure but simply be understanding 
it more deeply.  If that were true, however, than your and RAM's 
critique is moot; anyone, doing anything, is necessarily a "*total* 
oveid Hashem", and why should that status be the subject of aspiration?

David Riceman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120709/1a242113/attachment-0001.htm>

>>>Can there be a better synopsis of the mission of the Mamleches Kohanim
v'Goy Kadosh?

------  i thought  that , given that the 3 weeks  represents  the bein 
adom lmakom/chaveiro    failings  of klal yisrael ,  and in a sense, usher 
in the yemei tshuva,  [the alef/taf of av-tamuz  vs elul-tishri] , that 
Micha's  higid lecha  is  a prelude to the season---and saying  , i am not 
telling you anything new, youo already know what need be done......
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120709/632d6455/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 05:40:09PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
:> But the gemara is about listening to posqim. As I noted last post.
:> Which is why I don't know how you can say the idea is something like a
:> toladah to morid bemalkhus, when the gemara itself says it's lo sasur -- <<

: It just does not say that regarding the Shoftim of the Shoftim era...

RnCL's point aside, I still don't see how the gemara can be understood
this way. I realize this is now tangent-squared territory: Talking about
Yiftach was focusing on only one of my examples of a talmid chakham who
served in the army, and now we're not talking about Yiftach, but peshat
in a gemara in RH. But peshat too is worth hammering out...

I can't reply as I did off-list, cut-n-pasting the sugya and commenting
line-by-line. I never got Hebrew to work right in the digest. But to
describe the basic jist for the chevrah....

The sugya opens "T"R: lamah lo nispareshu shemosam shel zeqeinim eilu?"
And the answe is that no one should contrast the dayanim of their day to
specific members of the 70 zeqeinim. That one accepts his generations
dayanim. Which is where it segues into the comparisons between Moshe,
Aharon and Shmuel OT1H and Gid'on (Yeruba'al), Shimshon (Badan) and
Yiftach on the other.

I therefore can't see another peshat in the gemara than saying we're
discussing Yiftach as a poseiq, because the whole discussion is accepting
your generation's posqim (zeqeinim, members of BD), whether they be a
Yiftach or a Shemuel.

And I don't see how it could be topic drift, because the sugya closes with
"ubasa el hakohanim" (Dev' 17:9) which is the parashah from which we learn
"lo sasuru". Then it closes with Qoheles's warning against being overly
nostalgic. So, the whole thing begins and ends with halachic authority of
the poseqim of your generation, regardless of any stature comparisons. In
the middle Yiftach is made the topic of a stature comparison.

How is it not including Yiftach as an example of poseiq? Perhaps not
foremost (ignoring the question of who the zeqeinim are), but a TC,
surely.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 7/5/2012 6:01 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> at the bottom  of the article is  a link to plate tectonics, which
> i  thought  i mentioned in my email, which as we all  know,
> goes back millions of years......
>  as far as teh pottery finding in indo-china...... i think the
> finding(s) speak for them-selves......
> eg, 6000 years of a judaism based year system (excluding meforshim we don't
> like) to discu)ss doesnt [jibe] with pottery.......

A couple of things:

What's your basis for saying that plate tectonics goes back millions of 
years?  I mean other than having read it in a book.  Did they find a 
million year old map of Pangea?

How is the pottery in China dated?  And what is the foundation of that 
dating system?

Lisa

On 7/5/2012 1:33 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 02:03:45PM -0400, hankman wrote:
> : I think the answer is trivially simple! It is to do the rotzon of
> : HKB"H at all times to the best of your ability. All the rest is detail
> : and that is far from trivial.
>
> I thought the whole question was "What one theme is central to His Ratzon
> for what we should be accomplishing in life?"
>    

I think the theme itself should be that we need to do Retzon Hashem. 
Recursive as that may sound.


On 7/5/2012 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 1- Tell me how you view Hashem's goal for a human, so that one can plan
> how to conform to His Will for them?
>    

First, Hashem's goal for a human depends on the human.  In many, many 
ways.  To start with, Hashem's goal for a Jew and Hashem's goal for a 
non-Jew are not the same.  But for that matter, Hashem's goal for a man 
and Hashem's goal for a woman aren't the same.  Nor are Hashem's goal 
for a Kohen and for a Zar.  Or for you and for me.  There are 
commonalities in some of those cases.  Hashem's goal for Jews is for us 
to keep His Torah.

> 2- What I find more interesting, because #1 has SO MANY valid answers,
> all of which are necessarily incomplete, how would you reach an answer
> to #1?
>    

By applying context.  Do you mean what's Hashem's goal for us in terms 
of how we make a living?  Or what's Hashem's goal for us in terms of 
what we believe?  Or how we treat fellow Jews?  Or how we treat 
non-Jews?  Or how we act in a time of war?  Or how we raise our 
children?  I think you're making a false generalization.


On 7/5/2012 2:35 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 10:07 PM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
>>  But he bolds and underscores that it doesn't mean to believe in 
>> Hashem, it means to live by one's belief in Hashem, and to be putty 
>> in Hashem's hands.

> Similarly (?) the Sfat Emet says repeatedly that one has to batel 
> himself to Hashem or to the Am or to the Torah.

Asei retzono retzonecha k'dei sheHu yaaseh retzoncha kirtzono.  I think 
that and "v'zot haTorah asher sam Moshe lifnei Bnei Yisrael al pi Hashem 
b'yad Moshe" are probably the most concise two-line definition of Judaism.

Lisa

Rn Simi Peters:
 
> It seems to me that we can talk about the main idea of Judaism in
> terms of two things:  (1) the message of Judaism to the world (which
> also includes us) and (2) the main idea of Judaism in terms of what a
> Jew is supposed to be and do.
 
> It seems to me that the message of Judaism in the first sense is "ein od milvado".  This isn't a purely theological statement, 

I have trouble with that as a fundamental - it's too open to interpretation.
Is it the pshat in the verse, that there is no God but God [and Mussa is his
prophet]?  Or is it the reading of the Tikkunei haZohar (leit atar panui
mineih, etc.) and the Chasidim, that it's an expression of the Upper Unity,
that there is nothing but God as all physical finite reality is nullified
beside the Infinite?
 
> As far as the second main idea of Judaism (in terms of what a Jew is
> supposed to be and do), it seems to me that "Kedoshim tihiyu" is an
> explicit statement of that.  The Meshekh Hokhma's definition of this
> mitzva encapsulates its essential meaning: to dedicate everything to
> God--our time, our energies, our possessions, our relationships, etc. 

And yet this formulation is entirely God-centered in both aspects.  What about  our fellow man?  Hillel and Shimon haTzadik would disagree with an entirely
God-centered formulation, I think.  After all, the Torah is God's will for
humankind.  If that expression boils down to 'v'ahavta lereiacha kamocha' or
the negative formulation, that would seem to leave God out of the equation.

I'd use Shimon haTzadik's formulation, and perhaps Micha's Micha quote would
do for them: do justly (as Torah defines justice: learn the Torah, know the
Torah to do the Torah), love mercy (v'ahavta lereiecha kamocha), and walk
humbly with God (v'halachta bidrachav, Shema, v'ahavta, avodah).

I think it's fruitless to argue that God is more important than Man (self
and/or other) in Judaism, or that Man is more important than God - that
way lies the distinction between ethical and ritual mitzvot, and the
possibility of discarding one or the other depending on one's predi-
lections.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

I was under the impression that not only could you not drink 
non-mevushal wine that had been touched by a non-Jew, that you also 
couldn't drink it if it was touched by a Jew who wasn't shomer Shabbat.  
The other day, I was told that this is a matter of dispute.  Can someone 
clarify this?

Thanks,
Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120710/06e36b8a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:09:24AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I was under the impression that not only could you not drink  
> non-mevushal wine that had been touched by a non-Jew, that you also  
> couldn't drink it if it was touched by a Jew who wasn't shomer Shabbat.   
> The other day, I was told that this is a matter of dispute.  Can someone  
> clarify this?

There is no dispute -- the touch of a mechalel Shabbos or his carrying the
wine does make non-mevushal
wine stam yeinam.

What is under dispute is whether a tinoq shenishba qualifies as a mechalel
Shabbos WRT this din. RYBS, RMMS (the LR) and RAYK all prohibit, even though
all three do count heterodox Jews toward a minyan. RMF is matir.

See the thread
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TINOK%20SHENISHBA
and
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TINOK%20SHENI
SHBA%20FWD

ROY, kedarko beqodesh, has an exhaustive discussion in YE I YD 11.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RLL:

<<It's not a form of avodat Hashem?  I think it can be.  If it isn't, 
maybe that's something to work on.>>

I hate to flog a dead horse, but one more comment on this.

If you think, as I do, that the categories of mitzvah and aveirah are 
central to Judaism, this is a a troubling attitude.  If a change in 
perspective can transform a neutral act into a virtuous act, why can't 
it also change a prohibited act into a virtuous act?

David Riceman

On 7/10/2012 6:06 PM, David Riceman wrote:
> RLL:
>
> <<It's not a form of avodat Hashem?  I think it can be.  If it isn't, 
> maybe that's something to work on.>>
>
> I hate to flog a dead horse, but one more comment on this.
>
> If you think, as I do, that the categories of mitzvah and aveirah are 
> central to Judaism, this is a a troubling attitude.  If a change in 
> perspective can transform a neutral act into a virtuous act, why can't 
> it also change a prohibited act into a virtuous act?

Because it's prohibited.  Prohibited and required acts are defined.  
Neutral acts aren't.  You can think of it in terms of chazaka, if you 
like.  A prohibited act has a chazaka of being prohibited, if you'll 
excuse what looks like a tautology.  So in order to get it out of that 
chazaka, it takes something substantial.  For example, lighting a fire 
on Shabbat is a prohibited act.  But a choleh she-yesh bo sakana is a 
phenomenon that can transform that prohibited act into a permitted act, 
or even a required act.

A neutral act has no chazaka.  It's void of any inherent 
characteristic.  So to make it prohibited is fairly simple.  Browsing 
the internet: neutral (aseifa to the contrary).  Browsing to a porn 
site, prohibited.  Browsing to a Torah site, virtuous.  The neutral act 
itself isn't the issue.  It's how it's used.

Lisa

The idea of a neutral act is more "adin" than the below. If a person 
takes 15 minutes to read Ynet because he needs some down time before 
returning to mitzvah activities and this 15 minutes allows him to keep 
going, great. If he is reading Ynet because he is simply bored or gets a 
cheap thrill from talkbacks, than that is more problematic.

Ben

On 7/11/2012 2:20 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
>
> A neutral act has no chazaka.  It's void of any inherent 
> characteristic.  So to make it prohibited is fairly simple. Browsing 
> the internet: neutral (aseifa to the contrary).  Browsing to a porn 
> site, prohibited.  Browsing to a Torah site, virtuous. The neutral act 
> itself isn't the issue.  It's how it's used.



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 89
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."